Abstract

My argument is a commentary on the article by Müller, Sokol, and Overton (Developmental Review,18,1998, 155–201). At issue is the dispensability of the concept of representation in an account of the development of knowledge during infancy. My main conclusion is that an empiricist account reliant on representation conflicts with Occam's razor and so a constructivist account, which is not so reliant, is to be preferred. The discussion is in three parts and deals with objective knowledge and reality; objective experience and objectivity; and objectivity without representation. A final section examines some problems with constructivism. With respect to the development of knowledge during infancy, representation is an explanandum, not an explanans.